Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

M/S Skyline Engineering Contracts ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 July, 2020

Author: Manmohan

Bench: Manmohan, Sanjeev Narula

                                                                           #2
$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P.(C) 4023/2020
      M/S SKYLINE ENGINEERING
      CONTRACTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ...... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr. S. Sunil with Mr. B.K. Singh and
                              Mr. R.S. Yadav, Advocateas
                    versus
      UNION OF INDIA & ORS.            ....... Respondents
                    Through:           Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar,
                                       CGSC for R-1.
                                       Mr. Hapreet Singh, Sr. Standing
                                       Counsel for R-2 and 3.
                                       Mr. Syed Hussain Adil Taqvi, Govt.
                                       Pleader for UOI.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
                   ORDER

% 08.07.2020 The petition has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein. The same has been heard by way of video conferencing.

Present writ petition has been filed challenging the decision of respondent No.3 rejecting the petitioner's application under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "Scheme, 2019") on the ground that the quantification of tax liability has not been done completely and investigation is still pending.

Learned counsel for petitioner points out that out of three applications preferred under the Scheme, 2019, two have been accepted by respondent No.3. He contends that the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for petitioner states that the Deputy Commissioner, Anti-Evasion vide letter dated 06th March, 2019 had clearly quantified the service tax liability of the petitioner and communicated the same to the bank. He contends that if the service tax liability had not been properly quantified there was no reason for the said officer to write such a letter to the bank and seek direct payment of specific amount to the Central Government.

He also submits that the case of the petitioner does not fall under any of the ineligible clauses mentioned in sub-Section (1) of Section 125.

Issue notice.

Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 1. Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3. They pray for and are permitted to file counter-affidavit within two weeks.

Rejoinders, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. List on 26th August, 2020.

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.

MANMOHAN, J SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 08, 2020 rn